I had just read about the Porsche one yesterday https://www.motor1.com/news/744610/porsche-design-tower-sinking-miami/

It’s deeply embarrassing that the *suburbs* of Vancouver alone has 5x as many skyscrapers under construction as the entire state of California.

 

44 minutes ago, KJP said:

It’s deeply embarrassing that the *suburbs* of Vancouver alone has 5x as many skyscrapers under construction as the entire state of California.

 

 

Why?  And does it cheer you up that Miami has Vancouver beat?

 

Mostly I'm happy that Cleveland is on that map at all.

The Vancouver / Cali (specifically the Bay Area) comparison is a useful one to make when talking about tremendous shortcomings of American urban development. Obviously they aren't 1:1 comparisons, but they are both rapidly growing west coast cities (with some of the highest housings costs anywhere in the western world) that are topographically constrained with politically powerful NIMBYs in the urban core, yet also have world class regional rapid transit.

 

Vancouver and its neighboring cities have concentrated dense developments around SkyTrain stations throughout the metro to help meet its housing demands. San Francisco and the many cities around the Bay Area have build little more than some 5 over 1 apartment complexes near a few of the BART stations. 

 

Typical suburban SkyTrain station:

 

Typical suburban BART station:

 

Berkley, after lawsuits, ballot initiatives and decades of fighting may finally be developing one of its BART station parking lots with a ~700 home development. 

 

Meanwhile Burnbay is pursuing a massive (~15 tower, ~12,000 unit) redevelopment in the middle of Metrotown.

 

A lot of this is due to Canadian vs American federal policies around urban issues over the past ~75 years. That is however not a sufficient enough of an excuse for every East Bay city to not be pursuing dense developments around its BART stations. California has the capacity to make the necessary changes to allow for the densification of its cities (or at least those within walking distances of rapid transit). 

Plans are plans.  Neither of the existing suburbs looks too impressive to me, though.  But my point is that this a a very arbitrary measure to get personally invested in.

10 hours ago, NorthShore647 said:

A lot of this is due to Canadian vs American federal policies around urban issues over the past ~75 years. That is however not a sufficient enough of an excuse for every East Bay city to not be pursuing dense developments around its BART stations. California has the capacity to make the necessary changes to allow for the densification of its cities (or at least those within walking distances of rapid transit). 

 

And that's why it's embarrassing for California. We used to look to California to see what tomorrow's national trends would be. If California's inability to build is a harbinger, that's not good for America. But it's hardly a surprise. 

Do you really think California is embarrassed about a lack of new construction? It has the 5th largest economy in the world, and there are booming smaller cities like Folsom, Vernon, Dublin, Nathrop, etc. I imagine they're seeing their share of smaller constructions.

 

These days skyscrapers seem to be an enormous hassle, especially for legacy regions, so perhaps California's lack of construction is in itself forward thinking. Why build what you can't fill.

 

Vancouver is a beautiful city, but a lot of those constructions are prompted by sketchy foreign investments and are very empty. Outside of Granville, much of downtown feels very sterile and empty when the sun goes down. 

13 minutes ago, TBideon said:

Do you really think California is embarrassed about a lack of new construction?

 

Yes, absolutely. 

 

High housings costs is arguably the most defining aspect of California life. Its inability to build urban housing is slowing down the states economic growth, while exasperating many negative private and social outcomes (like homelessness, traffic, inequality, uneven tax burden - Prop. 13). When people with jobs (that want to live in your cities) leave because the housing is too expensive, that is absolutely a housing policy failure. The state has a goal of 2.5 million new units by the end of the decade (over 300,000 units per year). They are currently around ~115,000/year. 

 

To be clear, this is not just about a lack of >150m tall new builds. You can certainly build a sufficient amount of urban housing without going that tall. That simplistic measure can however be a good indicator of the level of new build activity happening in an urban area. The Bay Area isn't currently building anything above 150m, and they also aren't building nearly enough infill density throughout their cities. San Francisco just missed its state mandated housing goals (which could actually speed up the approval process - SB 423).  At some point you need to actually build density in your urban core, especially around existing high capacity transit, not just dethatched sfh is some sprawling suburb a valley over. 

Going tall (around high capacity transit) is a quick and comparatively easy way to meet your local housing demands in the existing North American housing development context. When nearly you entire city is sparling sfh built post war, the most economically and politically feasible approach might just be very targeted high density development areas. Its not perfect, but under the existing economic system its one of the better solutions. Vancouver and GTA figured this out decades ago and haven't slowed down. 

 

 

That's one reason why Canada is awesome. Just 100 miles north of us, in the metropolis of London, Ont., they're building BRT, they have six daily round-trip trains to Toronto and they're going vertical. Our AI overlords say.....

 

There are at least 10 high-rise buildings under construction in London, Ontario that are planned to be at least 60 meters tall. London is also seeing an increase in high-rise construction downtown and in the surrounding areas. The CEO of Downtown London, Barbara Maly, says that over the next five years, more than 5,500 residential units will be built downtown. Many of these will be mixed-use developments, with some commercial space on the main floor and some office and residential space above.

Found this rendering and thought it was cool.

 

 

Reconstruction of a Cucuteni–Trypillia culture site in modern Ukraine, named "Maidanetske." Approximately 7,000 years old. While it was obviously not a sprawling metropolis by modern standards, you can see the incredible density--density at a level that exists in very few modern cities. An area of approximately one square mile and a population estimated at as much as 45,000 (in other words, that would be about 2/3 the population density of modern-day Manhattan).

 

Just a reminder that the dense urban environment has existed since "time immemorial," is a natural environment for humans, and is something we should therefore expect to continue to exist regardless of other changes in technology, the economy, work structure, etc.

1 hour ago, LlamaLawyer said:

Just a reminder that the dense urban environment has existed since "time immemorial," is a natural environment for humans, and is something we should therefore expect to continue to exist regardless of other changes in technology, the economy, work structure, etc.

 

In the past there were reasons for density.   Closeness to farms, and later workplaces, defense against marauders, closeness to what specialists existed, primitive transportation systems, etc.

 

There's always going to be some people that prefer it for its own sake, but they are definitely a minority in the USA (especially away from the coasts and among the native born).   Building too much of it eventually poaches from existing dense areas.

 

 

It isn't only the weather that can cause a city to enjoy population growth. See Canada. It's also being pro-immigration which is its own job creator. Immigrants start businesses, create jobs and cause innovation. If your city and country aren't pro-immigrant, you aren't growing.

14 hours ago, KJP said:

It isn't only the weather that can cause a city to enjoy population growth. See Canada. It's also being pro-immigration which is its own job creator. Immigrants start businesses, create jobs and cause innovation. If your city and country aren't pro-immigrant, you aren't growing.

Screened and selective immigration. Both by the nation and by the immigrants.

Immigrants who choose a place that is more difficult to reach tend to be more motivated to succeed and more likely to adjust to its existing norms.

It's always the case with Canada. Other than the US, it has no close frontiers.

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

Screened and selective immigration. Both by the nation and by the immigrants.

Immigrants who choose a place that is more difficult to reach tend to be more motivated to succeed and more likely to adjust to its existing norms.

It's always the case with Canada. Other than the US, it has no close frontiers.

If the goal is population growth, than really all immigration works towards that. Immigrants are, after all, people and therefore "population".

Despite what a good chunk of our country believes right now.

1 minute ago, X said:

If the goal is population growth, than really all immigration works towards that. Immigrants are, after all, people and therefore "population".

Despite what a good chunk of our country believes right now.

Which is why "population growth" in and of itself shouldn't be the goal.

A good chunk of our country wants to maintain our national character. Agree or disagree, that's a fair aspiration.

To be blunter about it, people who are fleeing the problems of their nation may be welcome, but if they seek to bring them with them they are not.

Long distance immigrants usually are not doing that.

4 hours ago, E Rocc said:

Which is why "population growth" in and of itself shouldn't be the goal.

A good chunk of our country wants to maintain our national character. Agree or disagree, that's a fair aspiration.

To be blunter about it, people who are fleeing the problems of their nation may be welcome, but if they seek to bring them with them they are not.

Long distance immigrants usually are not doing that.

I am not sure I follow that last line. The close distance immigrants I know (Mexican) work almost non-stop. Their families are back in Mexico and they likely will go back to Mexico to retire. They aren’t really here to acclimate bit their presence is beneficial: they are paying taxes and likely not even eligible to receive those benefits.